Dear Hans,

I agree with everything that you have said in this post [including the "Best wishes and peace to all"!].

But I would add two more points.

The first is that, given its size, IVC may well have been bilingual or multilingual.

The second is that Vedic is very unlikely to have been one of these languages.  The picture of IVC that we get from the archaeological remains of IVC is incompatible with the picture of Vedic culture that we see in Vedic texts.  IVC is urban, and even urbane, whereas early Vedic is nomadic.  IVC is rich in fish-signs, whereas fish are never mentioned in the Rigveda.  Vedic is horse-centric, whereas horses are absent in IVC.  There is also the problem of a large historical gulf between the two cultures.

Again, best wishes and peacce to all.

George

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Hock, Hans Henrich <hhhock@illinois.edu> wrote:
So far, serious attempts at decipherment (esp. Parpola) favor a Dravidian interpretation. However, no decipherment — whether serious or amateur — has so far succeeded in giving readings that are generally accepted and/or that go beyond interpretations of some of the signs, but not of all (or most) of the putative texts. A good survey up to about 1995 is Possehl’s Indus Age: The writing system (1996). What further raises questions is the claim by Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel that the Indus symbols do not meet the definition of any known writing systems (The collapse of the Indus Script thesis: The myth of a literate Harappan Civilization, Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 2004) and the discussion this provocative and provocatively stated thesis has engendered. 

My 2¢ worth: Until materials with a larger number of symbols can be found, against which any of the proposed decipherments can be tested, all attempts at decipherment will run into the problem of not being verifiable by showing that they make it possible to read texts that were not used as the original basis for the decipherment.

Best wishes and peace to all,

Hans Henrich


On 11 Jun 2015, at 06:37, Howard Resnick <hr@ivs.edu> wrote:

On what do most experts base their opinion that IVC people did not speak an IE or IA language? Thanks.

Howard

On Jun 11, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Jesse Knutson <jknutson@hawaii.edu> wrote:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jesse Knutson <jknutson@hawaii.edu>
Date: Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Article about the politics surrounding Indology at the IHRC
To: Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi@gmail.com>


Prof. Paturi, Kind sir, 1. I only wished to point out that the IVC was a distinct civilization from the speakers of Old Indo- Aryan. I did not mean better, just technologically more advanced, and distinct. This are facts that need not contain any additional value judgment. 2. I know that IVC seals have not been deciphered, but simply wished to point out that in all probability, in the opinion of most experts, they did not speak an Indo-European or Indo-Aryan language. The only people who believe otherwise are the true racists and chauvinists, the Hindutva morons who sadly are in a position of great power in your country today.

So I would recommend that, in a spirit of intellectual integrity and calm, you try to discern the intent of someone's comments, before you start using heated language, and calling people racists and chauvinists. 

Good day,J 

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi@gmail.com> wrote:
Apart from Prof. Howard Resnick's analysis, the following from  Prof. Jesse Knutston also deserves attention:
 
when in fact the IVC was a highly developed civilization, of greater
antiquity than the Veda, which did not speak an Indo-Aryan or Indo-European
language. To attribute the IVC cultural achievements to the speakers of
Vedic is extremely racist and chauvinistic.

1. 'IVC was a highly developed Civilization' has the following assumptions : a. civilizations are superior to non-civilizational cultures. b. IVC has that superiority of being a civilizational culture. This is confirmed by the expression 'IVC cultural acievements'
 
2. 'which did not speak an Indo-Aryan or Indo-European language' has this assumption: The language spoken by the IVC people is clearly, undisputedly known through the decipherment of the seals and other such 'written' evidences.
 
Assumption under 1. is racist, evolutionist and has urban chauvinism.
 
Assumtion under 2. is in contradiction with the fact that the language of the IVC speakers is still under dispute and not yet clearly established.
--
Prof.Nagaraj Paturi
Hyderabad-500044

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)



--
Jesse Ross Knutson PhD
Assistant Professor of Sanskrit and Bengali, Department of Indo-Pacific Languages and Literatures
University of Hawai'i at Mānoa
452A Spalding



--
Jesse Ross Knutson PhD
Assistant Professor of Sanskrit and Bengali, Department of Indo-Pacific Languages and Literatures
University of Hawai'i at Mānoa
452A Spalding
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)